"Bulletin" the Supreme People's court case

Zheng Kebao and Xu Weiliang, the Peoples Insurance Company of China Changxin branch 

Huzhou City People's Court level

Plaintiff: Zheng Kebao, male, 24 years old, farmers, live in Anhui province Guangde County Qiu Cun zhen.

Defendant: Xu Weiliang, male, 45 years old, individual industrial and commercial households live in the peaceful town of Changxing County, Zhejiang province.

Defendant: Peoples Insurance Company of China Changxin branch address: Zhejiang Province, Changxing County town of pheasant Jinling road.

   Representative: Zhu Xinming, manager of the branch.

 

The plaintiff and defendant Xu Weiliang, Zheng Kebao for the Peoples Insurance Company of China Changxin branch (hereinafter referred to as the property long Xing Branch) road traffic accident compensation for personal injury disputes, bring a lawsuit to the people's Court of Changxing County in Zhejiang province.

　　The plaintiff Zheng Kebao claims: two fifty-eight on June 12, 2005, the plaintiff take license plate number Zhejiang EB1662 car along State Road 312 from west to east. To the 312 national highway overpass bridge at the pavilion, due to improper operation, driving the car driver Yang Jianping losing control of the vehicle, which was riding in the car the plaintiff fell out, and the car rolled induced injury. By the Suzhou Municipal Public Security Bureau Traffic Police Detachment patrol Industrial Park Group (hereinafter referred to as the Traffic Police Brigade reconnaissance Industrial Park), Yang Jianping finds that negative full responsibility for the accident, the plaintiff shall not be responsible for the accident. After the accident, the plaintiff was sent to the First Hospital Affiliated to Suzhou University treatment, 63 days of hospitalization, medical expenses, transportation costs 1677 yuan 64 991.05 yuan. After identification, the plaintiff's injury five class disable a, eight class disable a, ten disabled three. The Zhejiang EB1662 large car belongs to the defendant Xu Weiliang, Xu Weiliang in January 1, 2005 for the car to the property long Xing Branch Company for the third party liability insurance, the insurance amount (liability) for 500 000 yuan, the traffic accident occurred in the period of validity of the insurance contract. Therefore, Xu Weiliang as the owners of the plaintiff should bear the liability of compensation for the accident vehicle, Cai long Xing Branch shall be in accordance with its and Xu Weiliang signed insurance contracts in the "third party liability insurance" the liability limits assume responsibility for payment. In addition to the medical fees, transportation fees, the two defendants also need to compensate the plaintiff lost wages 8608 yuan, 3988 yuan care, hospital food subsidies 945 yuan 121 928 yuan, disability compensation, disability AIDS charges 440737.50 yuan. To sum up, request the court to order Xu Weiliang and Cai long Xing Branch compensation for the loss the plaintiff combined 642 874.55 yuan (by the property long Xing Branch in the insurance contract, the third party liability insurance liability limit compensation, the excess burden, by Xu Weiliang Xu Weiliang) and the plaintiff compensation for mental injury solatium 30000 yuan.

The plaintiff Zheng Kebao submitted the following evidence:

1 the Zheng Kebao residence booklet and a copy of the household registration certificate, to prove the identity of the plaintiff;

2 the traffic accident scene photos 22, the traffic police brigade industrial park traffic accident, traffic accident injury assessment of each, to prove that the traffic control department of Zhejiang EB1662 car driver Yang Jianping negative full responsibility for the accident, the plaintiff Zheng Kebao not negative accident responsibility, the plaintiff's injury five class disable a, eight disability level one, ten disabled three;

First Hospital Affiliated to Suzhou University in 3 outpatient medical records, hospital records, receipt, identification of hospitalization expenses list disease diagnosis certificate and medical fees, transportation fees, to prove the plaintiff Zheng Kebao injured in the traffic accident after hospitalized in First Hospital Affiliated to Suzhou University, medical costs 64 990.91 yuan, transportation costs 1677 yuan;

Issue 4 Shanghai Kesheng prostheses Co Ltd, a certificate, content is: it is recommended that the plaintiff Zheng Kebao mounting arm three DOF myoelectric prosthesis, the price is 36 500 yuan, use for a period of three to five years, the annual repair costs for the price of 5% to 8%. To prove the plaintiff also need to install artificial limb, purchase, installation and repair cost 440 737.50 yuan;

5 Peoples Insurance Company of China motor vehicle insurance policy (original) a, to prove that the defendant Xu Weiliang the Zhejiang EB1662 car to the property long Xing Branch against "the third party liability insurance", the insurance amount (liability) for 500 000 yuan, and do not calculate the deductible. At the same time also covered "car personnel liability insurance, the insurance amount" (liability) to 50000 yuan per seat, a total of 3 insured seat.

 

　　Xu Weiliang argued that the defendant: I identified and responsibility for the accident had no objection, but I have the accident vehicle to the property long Xing Branch against the third party liability insurance, the traffic accident happened during the validity of insurance contract, it should be money long Xing Branch Company shall bear the liability for compensation in the amount of insurance 500 000 yuan within the scope of. I have objection to disability aids the plaintiff Zheng Kebao litigation request that installation and repair costs, the plaintiff claims prosthesis installation and repair costs are too high, should according to the common type of auxiliary appliance installation, repair costs to be calculated. In addition, the traffic accident caused by the driver Yang Jianping illegal operations, traffic management departments also identified by Yang Jianping bear full responsibility for the accident, the plaintiff asked I bear mental injury solatium 30 000 yuan claims there is no legal basis. To sum up, the request rejected the plaintiff to claim my.

The defendant Xu Weiliang to submit relevant materials in First Hospital Affiliated to Suzhou University medical records, to prove that the plaintiff Zheng Kebao results of the damage occurred in the Zhejiang EB1662 car, the plaintiff was the car rolled to the left upper limb, spleen, liver and other injuries, the scope of compensation to the third party liability insurance.

The defendant's long Xing Branch Company that: the traffic accident is a unilateral accident, the plaintiff Zheng Kebao Department of vehicle Zhejiang EBl662 passengers, at the time of the accident, the plaintiff is still in the car, after the accident will be the plaintiff fell off, the plaintiff should be carried out in accordance with the loss of compensation liability of the personnel on the car allowance. The defendant Xu Weiliang for the vehicle to the company for the car personnel liability insurance, the insurance amount is 50 000 yuan per seat, so in accordance with the provisions of the insurance contract, the company only compensate the plaintiff in the 50 000 yuan limits, do not agree to take responsibility in accordance with the third party liability insurance liability limit.

The defendant's long Xing Branch submitted the following evidence:

1 Traffic Police Brigade accident Industrial Park A, to prove that the accident was the driver Yang Jianping in driving measures properly, causing the vehicle out of control, the plaintiff Zheng Kebao left unilateral accident caused by off;

A 2 Peoples Insurance Company of China of the motor vehicle third party liability insurance contract in accordance with the provisions, to prove that the defendant property, long Xing Branch should only be the vehicle officers liability insurance liability limit to claim the traffic accident in accordance with.

Changxing County people's court shall organize the quality of evidence. The defendant Xu Weiliang submitted to the plaintiff evidence Zheng Kebao 1, 2, 3, 5 have no objection, on the evidence of 4 has the objection, that the evidence the plaintiff for prosthesis installation and repair costs are too high, should aid according to the common application of the computational costs associated with. No objection to the Long Hing Choi Xu Weiliang branch submitted evidence 1, 2 is true, but that the evidence can not prove that the property long Xing Branch point. Fortune long Xing Branch agreed with Xu Weiliang on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff 4 examination opinions, have no objection to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in 1, 2, 3, 5 of the authenticity, but that the evidence and property long Xing Branch should be in this case responsibility. The company has objection to Xu Weiliang submitted evidence, that the traffic accident is a unilateral accident, the plaintiff belongs to "the personnel on the car" instead of "third". The plaintiff Xu Weiliang to submit evidence of no objection, no objection to the property long Xing Branch submitted evidence 1, 2 is true, but that the evidence can not prove that the property long Xing Branch point.

Changxing County people's court after that: the plaintiff to provide evidence of 1, 2, 3, 5, and Xu Weiliang provide evidence, the defendant's long Xing Branch provides evidence that 1, 2, are in line with the evidence of the authenticity, legitimacy and relevance, shall be confirmed; the plaintiff to provide evidence of 4 lines Shanghai Kesheng prostheses Co Ltd install artificial limb provides advice to the plaintiff, offer the suggestions to the recommended upper arm three DOF myoelectric prosthesis and repair costs are higher than that of similar products.After the Court Advisory deformity assistor preparing mechanism, combined with the actual situation of the age, injury severity, activity, from which is beneficial to the recovery of the plaintiff's self-care ability and engage in simple labor ability, and comprehensive consideration of no additional increase two the defendant responsibility angle,The upper arm prosthesis can be installed for the disabled in Zhejiang Province modern prosthesis and orthosis assembly center of the prosthesis, the price is 26 500 yuan, the average service life of 3 - 5 years, repair costs for the valence 4%, assembly, repair the prosthesis cost a total of $153700.

　　Changxing County people's Court of first instance found:

Two fifty-eight on June 12, 2005, the plaintiff Zheng Kebao take license plate number for the large car zhe EB1662, along national highway 312 from the west to the East, to the east side of bridge Weiting overpass when driving, the driver of the car was Yang Jianping on the pavement dynamic failure, emergency measures properly, causing the vehicle out of control, will ride in the car of the plaintiff left out of the bus, the plaintiff was later the car rolled induced injury. The traffic police brigade was involved in industrial park traffic accident certificate issued by the accident, Yang Jianping finds that negative full responsibility for the accident, the plaintiff shall not be responsible for the accident. After the accident, the plaintiff was sent to the First Hospital Affiliated to Suzhou University treatment, a total of 63 days of hospitalization, medical expenses, transportation costs 1677 yuan 64 990.91 yuan. In October 26, 2005, the traffic police brigade issued by industrial park traffic accident disability assessment, identification of the left upper limb amputation five class disable, splenectomy constitute eight level disability, liver repair ten class disable, facial scar formation constitutes a ten disabled, chest scar ten level disability.

The left upper limb amputation of the plaintiff Zheng Kebao need to install artificial limb, the upper arm prosthesis can be installed for the disabled in Zhejiang Province modern prosthesis and orthosis assembly center of the prosthesis, the price is 26 500 yuan, the average service life of 3 - 5 years, repair costs for the valence 4%, total cost 153700 yuan.

The vehicle Zhejiang EB1662 large automobile department accused Xu Weiliang of all, Yang Jianping accused Xu Weiliang hired driving the car driver. After the accident, the defendant Xu Weiliang to pay the plaintiff Zheng Kebao 50 000 yuan loan form.

December 8, 2004, the defendant Xu Weiliang for the vehicle to the defendant's long Xing Branch insured motor vehicle third party liability insurance, the insurance amount (liability) for 500 000 yuan, and do not calculate deductibles, and also for the car insurance staff car insurance, the insurance amount (liability) to 50000 yuan per seat, a total of 3 insured seat. The insurance period from January 1, 2005 0 to December 31, 2005 24 when stop. The two defendants in the motor vehicle third party liability insurance of insurance contract clauses of the contract:"...... The insurance contract in the third refers to the addition of the insured, the insurer, the insurer is outside, victims of insurance vehicle insurance vehicle accidents suffered personal injury or loss of property;...... The insured or permits driving personnel accident insurance vehicle in use process, causes the third suffers from a personal injury or property damage directly, in accordance with the law shall be insured by bear the economic liability, the insurer is responsible for compensation;...... Vehicle insurance other personnel of the car caused personal injury or property damage, if the insured shall bear the liability for compensation in the law, the Insurers shall not be liable for;...... Insurance on the basis of the insurance vehicle drivers are negative in the accident liability ratio, bear corresponding responsibility for compensation;......" At the same time agreed personnel in the vehicle liability insurance clause:"...... Insurance liability accident, cause insurance vehicle and personnel casualties, in accordance with the law shall be insured by bear the economic liability, the insurer is responsible for compensation;...... The limits of liability which the personnel on the car insurance per person limit of liability and the number of seats by the insurer and the insured when the insurance is determined in consultation, the insured in the insurance seat of vehicle number of passengers;......"

　　In this case the focus of the dispute is: A, the accident caused damage to the plaintiff Zheng Kebao, who should bear the responsibility for compensation; two, was involved in the accident vehicle Zheng Kebao was thrown out because of losing control of the vehicle, and the vehicle was crushed, the situation belongs to the motor vehicle third party liability insurance claims, belong to the responsibility of the personnel on the car insurance claims range.

Changxing County people's Court of first instance that:

One, about who to plaintiff Zheng Kebao injury liability issues.

The identification of the fact, at the time, due to the driving the vehicle in EB1662 large car driver Yang Jianping on the pavement dynamic failure, emergency measures properly, resulting in losing control of the vehicle, originally by the plaintiff Zheng Kebao in the car was thrown out of the car and was the car rolled induced injury. According to the identification of the traffic management departments of public security, Yang Jianping responsible for the traffic accident, his acts constitute infringement. "The Supreme People's Court on the trial of personal injury compensation case applicable legal interpretation" the ninth stipulation: "the employees engaged in employment activities cause damage, the employer shall bear the responsibility for compensation; employees due to gross negligence or intentional damage, he shall bear joint and several liability with the employer. The employer shall bear joint and several liability, can claim compensation from the employee." The vehicle Zhejiang EB1662 large automobile department accused Xu Weiliang of all, Yang Jianping Xu Weiliang hired driver, the traffic accident occurred in the Yang Jianping according to the assigned Xu Weiliang engaged in employment activities in the process, so the traffic accident on the Zheng Kebao caused personal injury shall bear the liability for compensation, Xu Weiliang. Zheng Kebao hurt in the traffic accident, total medical costs 64 990.91 yuan, 1677 yuan fee, traffic delay costs 7140.86 yuan, 3357.27 yuan care, hospital food subsidies 945 yuan 82 905.60 yuan, disability compensation, disability AIDS charges 153700 yuan, 716.64 yuan more than the total 314 . In view of the Xu Weiliang and the defendant property long Xing Branch on the vehicle entered into a contract of insurance, the property long Xing Branch Company shall bear the liability of compensation in the range specified in the insurance contract.

The Supreme People's court "about the problems of defining the civil right infringement spirit damage compensate responsibility to explain" the first stipulation: "natural person with the personality rights are infringed, to the people's court request for compensation for mental damages, the people's court shall accept according to law: (a) the right to life, the right to health, the right of body;......". The traffic accidents caused by the plaintiff Zheng Kebao multiple disability, to Zheng Kebao in the future health and normal work, life impact, but also to its spiritual pain. According to the specific circumstances of the act of tort and the damage to the consequences of such situation, at the same time, fully consider the compensation for spiritual damage compensation, both comfort and function of punishment and other factors, as appropriate, to determine the defendant Xu Weiliang to pay Zheng Kebao mental injury solatium 30 000 yuan.

Two, about the responsibility of traffic accident of motor vehicle third party liability insurance claims scope, still belongs to the responsibility of the personnel on the car insurance claims a range of issues.

The defendant Xu Weiliang and the defendant property long Xing Branch on the vehicle Zhejiang EB1662 large car entered into the motor vehicle third party liability insurance contract, whichAgreed: "the insurance contract in the third refers to the addition of the insured, the insurer, the insurer is outside, victims of insurance vehicle insurance vehicle accidents suffered personal injury or loss of property." The plaintiff Zheng Kebao is neither the insurance contract between the insured, the insured, the insurer is not. According to the recognition of the traffic management department, the traffic accident is really a bicycle accident. Before the occurrence of the accident, the plaintiff is Zhejiang EB1662 passenger car, belonging to the personnel on the car, but the plaintiff was thrown clear of the car because of losing control of the vehicle, after landing was the car rolled the traffic injuries, the traffic accident occurs when the plaintiff has under Zhejiang EB1662 car, according to the facts mentioned above be that the plaintiff, belongs to the "victims" insurance vehicle insurance vehicle accident suffers from a personal injury under, that in the event of the traffic accident, the plaintiff has been changed from "the personnel on the car" (passenger) into "third".

In addition, the motor vehicle third party liability insurance exemption clause, because the insurance vehicle accidents, leading to other personnel of the car of personal injury or property damage, if the insured shall bear the liability for compensation in the law of insurance, per capita is not responsible for compensation. In view of the exemption clause in format clause, and the clause "other personnel of the car's personal injury or damage to property" may have two kinds of interpretation,One explanation is thatOnly refers to the personnel on the car in the car's personal injury or damage to property, as the car to leave the car and was led to the car accident damage results do not belong to the exemption scope;Another explanationThe personnel on the car in the car and leave the car after the car accident damage results insurance person exemption. In view of the two parties in dispute, so this clause shall be made against the terms of format provider explanation according to law. It finds that the case does not apply to the exemption clause.

To sum up, the plaintiff Zheng Kebao because of the traffic accident injuries, should the defendant property long Xing Branch in accordance with the defendant Xu Weiliang involved in the accident of motor vehicle third vehicles a liability insurance clause claim. Liability insurance amount (the motor vehicle third party liability limit) for 500 000 yuan, and do not calculate deductible, so the property long Xing Branch Company shall compensate the loss the plaintiff adds up to 314716.64 yuan.

Accordingly, the Changxing County people's court in March 31, 2006 ruled:

One, the property long Xing Branch to compensate the plaintiff Zheng Kebao the total loss 314 716.64 yuan; two, the defendant Xu Weiliang compensation the plaintiff Zheng Kebao mental injury solatium 30000 yuan; three, rejected the plaintiff Zheng Kebao the rest of the claim.

Fortune long Xing Company verdict of the first trial, appeal to the Zhejiang province Huzhou City Intermediate People's court, the main reasons are: 1 a judgment only with the traffic accident damages happened outside the vehicle, namely that the appellee Zheng Kebao identity has been transformed by the personnel on the car for third, against Zheng Kebao is an objective fact that the car rides personnel. The traffic accident happened to Zheng Kebao was thrown out of the vehicle, the accident is inseparable with the traffic accident, rather than the two traffic accident, Zheng Kebao is not to get off, the car after the end of the identity in the other were injured in a traffic accident. 2 the first trial one-sided understanding of the insurance contract terms about third of those provisions, at the same time, does not apply to the contract Article sixth (three) of "insurance vehicle caused by other personnel of the car of personal injury or property damage, if the insured shall bear compensation responsibility whether in law, exemption the provisions of the insurance per capita is not responsible for compensation", is wrong. Request cassation, the judgment shall be amended according to the responsibility of the personnel on the car insurance claims which belongs to the range of the liability of traffic accidents.

The appellee, Zheng Kebao Xu Weiliang argued that: the court finds that the facts are clear, the applicable law is correct. Request the second instance court dismissed the appeal, upheld the.

 

 

Huzhou City Intermediate People's Court of second instance trial by, confirmed the finding of facts.

　　The focus of controversy in this case the second instance is still the responsibility of traffic accident involving a belongs to the motor vehicle third party liability insurance claims, or belonging to the responsibility of the personnel on the car insurance claims range.

Huzhou City Intermediate People's Court of second instance that:

"Insurance law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as" insurance law) the fiftieth stipulation: "the insurer of liability insurance of the insured to third party damage, can be in accordance with the provisions of law or contract,Directly to the third party compensation insurance." According to the above provisions, the third party liability insurance is the insured liability for third as standard, to fill the insured shall bear the responsibility for compensation for the loss of insurance third. "Third" can be defined according to the agreement or the legal regulation of insurance contract. In this case, the appellant's long Xing Branch and the appellee Xu Weiliang between the motor vehicle third party liability insurance is a belongs to this kind of insurance. According to the facts of this case, the traffic accident responsibility involved belongs to the motor vehicle third party liability insurance claims scope.

Firstly, the traffic accident victims, i.e. the appellee Zheng Kebao belongs to the appellant's long Xing Branch and the appellee Xu Weiliang motor vehicle third party liability insurance contract provisions of the "third". According to the provisions of the motor vehicle third party liability insurance clause, "third" refers to the addition of the insured, the insurer and the insured is outside, victims of insurance vehicle insurance vehicle accidents suffered personal injury or loss of property. In this case, Zheng Kebao is not involved in the case of the motor vehicle third party liability insurance of the insured, the insured and the insurer. Zheng Kebao because in the vehicle insurance accident, the vehicle rolling and cause serious damage to the victims, insurance vehicle insurance vehicle accident suffers from a personal injury or property damage under, also belong to the provisions of the motor vehicle third party liability insurance clause "third".

Secondly, the appellee Zheng Kebao in the event of the traffic accident is the insurance before the vehicle "the personnel on the car", but this fact does not affect Zheng Kebao involved in the traffic accident "the third person" identity, the appellant's long Xing Branch about the traffic accident liability should be established according to the responsibility of the personnel on the car insurance claims the view is not. The appellee Xu Weiliang in for the insurance vehicle insurance motor vehicle third party liability insurance at the same time, also for the car insurance car personnel liability insurance. Xu Weiliang and Cai long Xing Branch a car personnel liability insurance clause, due to an accident caused by the insured vehicle car personnel casualties, in accordance with the law shall be insured by bear the economic liability insurance claims in accordance with the responsible person, shall the liability limit. Accordingly be found,Here the "staff car" refers only to persons in the vehicle. When there was an accident. If someone is insurance vehicle car personnel in accidents, accidents have exposure to the insured vehicle, do not belong to the insured vehicle car personnel.Further analysis, we can conclude the followingConclusion:Judging by the insurance accident happens to the vehicle traffic accident victims belong to "third" or the "staff car", must be the person in the traffic accident happened at this particular time is in the vehicle above as the basis, in the car is "the personnel on the car", under the car is "the third".At the same time, because the motor vehicle is a vehicle, it is impossible for anyone to permanently in a motor vehicle, which relates to a motor vehicle insurance contract in "third" and "the personnel on the car" it involved areTemporary identity under certain time-space conditions, namely "third" and "the staff car" are not fixed forever, identity, the two can change due to the specific conditions of time and space and transformation.

In this case, the traffic accident facts, Zheng Kebao was involved in the insurance vehicle rolling injury. The accident happened, Zheng Kebao did take over the insurance vehicle, belonging to the personnel on the car. But the driver when emergency improper operation, leading to the insured vehicle out of control, Zheng Kebao will be thrown out of the car, then the insurance vehicle rolling to the injured. Therefore, the traffic accident, Zheng Kebao is not on the insurance vehicle, but the vehicle. If Zheng Kebao is involved in the vehicle insurance staff car in the traffic accident, it may not be the car rolled injury. Therefore, property and long Xing Branch only to Zheng Kebao in the event of the accident before the ride on the insurance vehicle facts, that Zheng Kebao belongs to the vehicle insurance personnel on the car, the traffic accident liability shall be in accordance with the responsibility of the personnel on the car insurance claims, its point of view, not only does not comply with the provisions of the insurance contract, also perverse.

Third, this case does not apply to the motor vehicle third party liability insurance exemption clause. The motor vehicle third party liability insurance exemption clause, because the insurance vehicle accidents, leading to other personnel of the car of personal injury or property damage, if the insured shall bear the liability for compensation in the law, the Insurers shall not be liable for. The court held that, the exemption clause in format clause, and the clause "other personnel of the car's personal injury or damage to property" may have two kinds of interpretation, an interpretation is only refers to the personnel on the car in the car's personal injury or damage to property, as for the car to leave the car and was led to the car accident damage results do not belong to the exemption scope; another is for the personnel on the car in the car and leave the car after the car accident damage results insurance person exemption. In view of the two parties in dispute, so this clause shall be made against the terms of format provider explanation according to law. It finds that the case does not apply to the exemption clause. The appellant's long Xing Branch think, appellee Zheng Kebao was thrown from the vehicle insurance, rather than from the car to leave, a judgment will be thrown out equal to leave, belonging to one concept, the case shall be suitable for the exemption clause. The trial court that,According to the provisions of the motor vehicle third party liability insurance exemption clause, that the terms "the car other people" and the vehicle officers liability insurance clause "staff car" exactly the same, that is also in the insured vehicle accidents in the car on the staff, in addition to not there must be some other explanation.As mentioned before, Zheng Kebao in the traffic accident has been from the personnel on the car into the third. Whether Zheng Kebao was passively from the insurance vehicle "thrown out" or active from the car to leave, can not be changed in the traffic accident occurred when Zheng Kebao is not on the insurance vehicle facts, does not affect the third party identity. In addition, even called for the motor vehicle third party liability insurance exemption clause "this car other people" may make other interpretation, but also because of the terms of the format of the terms, in controversial circumstances, shall be made in accordance with the law is not conducive to the terms of the format that is the provider of Bao Changxin branch explanation. Therefore, this case does not apply to the motor vehicle third party liability insurance exemption clause.

To sum up, appellant property long Hing company cannot be established, shall not be accepted. A judgment ascertaining the facts clearly, correctly applies the law, legal proceedings, shall be maintained. Huzhou City Intermediate People's court in accordance with the "PRC Civil Procedure Law," the first paragraph of article 153rd (a) the provisions of item, decided in September 18, 2006:

Dismiss the appeal, upheld the.

   This judgment is the final judgment.